Page 10 of 37 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213141520 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 727
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #181  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Originally posted by cardio:

    T2, useful- serve a purpose demanding an answer as to why the president killed her son? Her family could use her home right now.Again, I see your point, but that is what you deem as useful. I doubt she is thinking about anyone else right now.

    His order-that is reaching, so if my boss told me to go get supplies from another area in town and I was killed by a drunk driver my boss killed me? NO. It's probably not no because of what you think. It's no because your boss didnt know before hand that he would be putting you in harm's way. The President knew that and did it anyway. Your example is not completely analogous

    T2 We have to keep it in context, when someone joins the military they have to know they may get sent in harms way and accept it, the boss knows he may order someone in harms way, all part of the employment agreement. In the civilian marketplace for the most part we are not expected to put our life on the line (firefighters and police are) and our boss does not expect to send us in harms way. With that thought process, it is very similar my boss gave me a task, his boss gave him a task all involved knew the risk if one is quilty of killing both are.

    My bet - terminology, lots of reasons to believe Saddam supported Al-Quada to include training camps in Iraq. My point was that you just said it and didnt back it up.

    There are plenty of links to reports in this thread, no use repeating.

    Right to speak is no issue, but many posts sound as if the idividual is speaking for military individuals when they are ranting for themselves. Again, that is your interpretation (as you say 'sound') of what they are saying...my advice is to question it before reading too much into it.

    Again speak all you want but do not phrase as if you are there or have the right to speak for those that are or have been there. Fair enough. I see a lot of people speaking out about it and not many acting like they know what it's like. Even so, they don't have to know what it's like to have a voice. That's not the requirement.

    Right, but how much more sense it would make if they worded it as such.

    Criticize was probably the wrong choice of words. I do beleive when you demean the Commaner in Chief you demean the men under his command especially when it is done in such a public forum. It sends a message to the grunt on the ground that we as a nation are not behind the men and women fighting. When we watched C-N and saw the protests and the insults it did have an impact. It appeared that the whole nation had that attitude. That's fine...but not every servicemember feels the same. Arguably, when I was in the Corps, we didn't care what people thought about us and what we did. We were willing to put it on the line for our fellow grunts and our country. We motivated ourselves...and I suspect that many of our servicemen do the same.

    Absolutely, but would you not have rathered had external motivation also? I applaud all those who can turn a deaf ear to the rants of others. When you are getting beat on by the media and by the enemy it sure makes our job tough.

    Easy to challeng the descison when you do not have to make the choice or have all the information that he has available. Right or wrong, invade or not someone will say it is the wrong choice. The choice was made lets work on doing the best we can with the decision. Of course it's easier...but that doesn't automatically make the criticism less valid. The choice was made...so let's make sure we don't make poor choices but getting ideas from both sides of the isle.

    All for getting ideas. Have not read many from the posters here, just how horrible it is that we have people in danger (although they all volunteered to be in that position).

    You are absolutely right, the cost of this war or any war will be astronomical. How high would it have been if we had not intervened when we did, what if Saddam did acquuire a weapon capable of dispersing biological agents into an area populated by US soldiers (Saudi, UAE, Kuwait).Like you said...what if. I don't know...I am actually very much in the middle on the Iraq war. At the same time though...I won't close my eyes when the critics speak...and then tell them they can't because they werent there. We should encourage the criticisms, that way everyone can be involved in some way and then we can build true support for what we do. That's what will (IMO) motivate our troops more.
    Again, agree with listening to critics, looking for better ideas, seeking support but do you see many valid ideas, or support posted here or in the individual peace crusade that started this post. I do not.
  2. #182  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Again, agree with listening to critics, looking for better ideas, seeking support but do you see many valid ideas, or support posted here or in the individual peace crusade that started this post. I do not.
    The only solution now, given the stupidity that led to the occupation, is to appeal to the Europeans for assistance in Iraq and in training police/military outside of Iraq.

    But face it. Powell's prediction came true. When the dust settles there will be a Shiite state and a Kurdish state. The Kurdish state will destabalize surrounding areas probably leading to another military deployment of U.S. troops in the region.

    But hey. This was a much better plan than isolating and continuing to make the Hussein regime impotent and promoting democracy from within.
  3. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #183  
    AlaskanDad,

    Good point, another one would be if we looked at the senators during the election phase and based our vote on their history of serving our country (not just military service but include police officers, firefighters and other public service) instead of their current stand on the hot topics (abotion, gay rights, gun laws etc) which will usually change with the way the wind blows. If they served in the military it would be a bonus.
  4. #184  
    Am I missing something here? When interviewed as to why she is doing what she is doing all this woman comes up with is old worn out leftist cliches. "Bush lied when he said there were WMD's in Iraq. Bush has not exit stradegy. Bush this and Bush that all of which the press has fed on continuously for several years now
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  5. #185  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    AlaskanDad,

    Good point, another one would be if we looked at the senators during the election phase and based our vote on their history of serving our country (not just military service but include police officers, firefighters and other public service) instead of their current stand on the hot topics (abotion, gay rights, gun laws etc) which will usually change with the way the wind blows. If they served in the military it would be a bonus.
    Did you apply that to the last Presidential election in which one man served in combat and the other did not?
  6. #186  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Am I missing something here? When interviewed as to why she is doing what she is doing all this woman comes up with is old worn out leftist cliches. "Bush lied when he said there were WMD's in Iraq. Bush has not exit stradegy. Bush this and Bush that all of which the press has fed on continuously for several years now
    Yea, because it's TRUE.
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #187  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The only solution now, given the stupidity that led to the occupation, is to appeal to the Europeans for assistance in Iraq and in training police/military outside of Iraq.

    But face it. Powell's prediction came true. When the dust settles there will be a Shiite state and a Kurdish state. The Kurdish state will destabalize surrounding areas probably leading to another military deployment of U.S. troops in the region.

    But hey. This was a much better plan than isolating and continuing to make the Hussein regime impotent and promoting democracy from within.

    Stupid senators, stupid constituants who voted in the stupid congress. Stupid people.

    You know, I thought the Europeans were there. Guess they just fooled me with phony accents and uniforms.

    Maybe there will be a Kurdish state and a Shiite state? Do you really think the area was stable before. I seem to remember being in Saudi and in Kuwait about 12 years ago and it did not seem to be stable then. How about the continued Iran/Iraq conflicts? Not to stable there. That region has been unstable for hundreds of years and will probably remain unstable for hundreds of years. However there is one less tyrant murdering his own people, invading neighboring countries for oil and trying to monopolize the cude oil in the area.

    If Saddams regime was impotent with the previous tactics it sure fooled a lot of people, countries and agencies. Oil for food was a great program
  8. #188  
    I find it pretty bad that the press seems to have a love affair with people like her while almost totally ignoring the thousands of other survivors who support the war and the President. It is so very typical of the Liberal agenda. Those who blindly support her and condemn those who speak out against her are the ones who should really be ashamed of themselves. She is a willing pawn of Michael Moore. Associating with him and supporting him makes her every bit as vile as Moore himself.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  9.    #189  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Am I missing something here? When interviewed as to why she is doing what she is doing all this woman comes up with is old worn out leftist cliches. "Bush lied when he said there were WMD's in Iraq. Bush has not exit stradegy. Bush this and Bush that all of which the press has fed on continuously for several years now
    Oh, this gets so old explaining. Clairegrrl I know understand this, but this is for the dense ones. Bush and the majority of the world including Britain, France, Germany, Russia and others thought Iraq had WMD's. This also includes within USA John Kerry, who lost the Presidential election last Fall. Exit strategy is factored on when the job is done, not when soldiers get killed. This lady sounds like a broken record with talking points.

    Some facts, USA went to the war with Iraq with agreement of both Repubs and Dems. USA went to war without the acceptance of Germany, France and Russia. These same countries were profitting illegally with Saddam. This got in the way of thinking removing Saddam was a good idea. We also didn't have the approval of the UN. Something libs like to mention when they say Bush is nothing but a gun totin cowboy. What many short-sided libs don't remember is USA also went through with Kosovo when the UN didn't agree. Oh, what a job it is to have to educate the uneducated.
  10. #190  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Stupid senators, stupid constituants who voted in the stupid congress. Stupid people.

    You know, I thought the Europeans were there. Guess they just fooled me with phony accents and uniforms.

    Maybe there will be a Kurdish state and a Shiite state? Do you really think the area was stable before. I seem to remember being in Saudi and in Kuwait about 12 years ago and it did not seem to be stable then. How about the continued Iran/Iraq conflicts? Not to stable there. That region has been unstable for hundreds of years and will probably remain unstable for hundreds of years. However there is one less tyrant murdering his own people, invading neighboring countries for oil and trying to monopolize the cude oil in the area.

    If Saddams regime was impotent with the previous tactics it sure fooled a lot of people, countries and agencies. Oil for food was a great program
    Hussein has been impotent since Gulf War I. And PULEEEEZZZ do not sit there and with a straight face give me that "one less tyrant" line. If the U.S. cared about tyrants there are a lot more severe one's than the Bathists out there.
  11. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #191  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Did you apply that to the last Presidential election in which one man served in combat and the other did not?
    Hey, sure did. Neither had great record in that department though did they.
  12. #192  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Hussein has been impotent since Gulf War I. And PULEEEEZZZ do not sit there and with a straight face give me that "one less tyrant" line. If the U.S. cared about tyrants there are a lot more severe one's than the Bathists out there.
    What was your stance on Milosevic, and on us bombing the crap out of the former Yugo states? Just out of curiousity.

    (I was against it, just to be fair)
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  13. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #193  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Hussein has been impotent since Gulf War I. And PULEEEEZZZ do not sit there and with a straight face give me that "one less tyrant" line. If the U.S. cared about tyrants there are a lot more severe one's than the Bathists out there.
    I disagree that he was impotent since Gulf War I. If we had finished the job then we would not be there now. However, the peace activists did not want us to take out the invader, just get him out of Kuwait. Oh we can not invade that country let's just protect his neighbor and then put up these sanctions, I know he will follow the UN sanctions now. I wonder why he continued to seek WMDs from Russia and hide things from the UN. Do you really think Saddam was content with what he had or do you think he may have really been trying to rebuild his army to once again attack a smaller country for his own gain.

    I do not have any complaints if there is a need to take out other dictators and tyrants. But, realize there will be casualties there also
  14. #194  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The only solution now, given the stupidity that led to the occupation, is to appeal to the Europeans for assistance in Iraq and in training police/military outside of Iraq.

    But face it. Powell's prediction came true. When the dust settles there will be a Shiite state and a Kurdish state. The Kurdish state will destabalize surrounding areas probably leading to another military deployment of U.S. troops in the region.

    But hey. This was a much better plan than isolating and continuing to make the Hussein regime impotent and promoting democracy from within.
    The London Guardian today wrote a terrific piece which echoes what you wrote.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...545861,00.html




    The west profoundly misunderstood how the Middle East works

    Martin Woollacott
    Wednesday August 10, 2005
    The Guardian

    Nobody now disputes that misunderstanding has paved every step of the way in Iraq. The misunderstanding, or the lie, about Saddam's weapons continues to be central to western arguments about the war. But, important as that issue remains, there was a more profound set of misunderstandings of the social, political and religious processes at work within the Middle East.

    They included especially the tense balance between Sunni and Shia, a loss of diversity and tolerance in the Sunni lands, the real impact of Sharon's long reign in Israel, and the effect of demographic changes altering the politics of many countries in the region. It was not that these things were not seen by experts, governments or even journalists, but that they were not added up, or were added up in the wrong way. Some, such as the Shia majority in Iraq, were seen by many only as an asset for an invader. Others, such as the collapsing peace process, were categorised as requiring remedy but not, in spite of much rhetoric, urgency. Above all, the interaction between these processes, still continuing, was only partially foreseen.

    For example, Iran's resumption of its nuclear programme this week is the act of a government that, although it has serious internal weaknesses, is in a position of strength in its international dealings. The argument going on next door in Iraq over the constitution is also one in which Shia Muslims are in a strong position. In Lebanon, Syrian withdrawal may ultimately benefit an already strong Shia community. In the Gulf and in Saudi Arabia, suppressed Shia aspirations may not remain so for ever.
    These are all aspects of a shift in power between Sunnis and Shias that always had some potential for violence. But the way in which the Iraqi intervention triggered a violent Sunni reaction - at least as much among Sunnis outside Iraq as among those inside - to a potential Shia gain may come to be seen as its most important, and its most tragic, effect. To gloss this only as "terrorism", and to see it mainly in terms of a conflict between terrorists and the west, is to miss a large part of its meaning.

    The Iranian revolution had given the region a new kind of state, specifically religious and specifically Shia in a way that the Shah's regime had never been. Much of what Saddam did during his years in power was aimed at staving off a Shia succession, but, especially with Iran's weight on the scales, change in Iraq could not be delayed for ever.

    That such a succession would have come anyway in Iraq, and would undoubtedly have been accompanied by violence, is not a defence of the war. It could well have been much less violent, and it might well also have taken place - notwithstanding the existence of significant jihadist groups - without inducing such an angry Sunni reaction, for the American intervention gave an inevitable change: the aspect of a western-assisted Shia seizure of power from Sunnis in the best-endowed of all Arab states...

    ... Europe had "in a fit of absent-mindedness ... acquired not a colonial empire but something of an internal colony, whose numbers are roughly equivalent to the population of Syria." ...The limbo in which some of Europe's Muslims live has suddenly become an object of intense interest...

    The Americans in particular are wont to see nothing underneath a bad government except a people yearning to be free, and to regard the secular middle classes of countries such as Iraq or Iran as the authentic representatives of everybody else. Like it or not, this is not always the case. In Iraq's war conditions, apart from Kurdistan, these classes have been brutally targeted in Sunni areas and may well end up being outflanked by clerics in the Shia south. In Iran the recent election was a reminder that there is a third party in what from the outside is often seen as a conflict between authoritarian rulers and a liberal middle class. This third party may find itself deceived in its choice in Iran, but it is a constituency of more ordinary folk, with conservative Islamic leanings, a desire for clean government and not much interest in issues of cultural freedom. It is a constituency visible everywhere in the Middle East, in countries that have democracy, such as Turkey, where it sustains the ruling party, and in those that have little...

    ..."If you can't garner adequate resources - and public opinion at home and abroad - to rebuild a nation, do not start." But we did start, and now history has us by the throat.

    (BTW da Thomas -- I know someone VERY close to Powell -- unfortunately I think we would be dissapointed to know all that he secretly believed.)
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  15.    #195  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    ...and hide things from the UN.
    Not sure Saddam was hiding anything from UN. Sounds like Saddam and UN were hiding things from the world. What a shameful organization it is.
  16. #196  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Hey, sure did. Neither had great record in that department though did they.
    One, who opposed the VN war had a truly heroic record.

    The other was a war advocate -- and a CHICKEN HAWK !!

    he was a phoney who hid out in Alabama drinking on AWOL from the gaurd unit his daddy got him into
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  17.    #197  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    One, who opposed the VN war had a truly heroic record.

    The other was a war advocate -- and a CHICKEN HAWK !!

    he was a phoney who hid out in Alabama drinking on AWOL from the gaurd unit his daddy got him into
    Apparently not accurate as you stated. The liberal media proposed this, but it was based on a deck of cards.
  18. #198  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    What was your stance on Milosevic, and on us bombing the crap out of the former Yugo states? Just out of curiousity.

    (I was against it, just to be fair)

    I supported what Clinton did -- he (and I) wanted to move earlier, but was constrained by stupid Euro and neo-con opposition.

    Briliantly, he succeeded without a SINGLE american soldier dying (against the views of conservatives and most of the military)
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  19. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #199  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    One, who opposed the VN war had a truly heroic record.

    The other was a war advocate -- and a CHICKEN HAWK !!

    he was a phoney who hid out in Alabama drinking on AWOL from the gaurd unit his daddy got him into
    Heroic record! Yeah, if you read his citations written/edited by him. If you can still find the original citations from the Navy I think you will read a different story.

    Listen to how good I tell you I am and do not listen the numerous witness' who saw what I did and have a different account of how good I am.
  20. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #200  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    The London Guardian today wrote a terrific piece which echoes what you wrote.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...545861,00.html




    The west profoundly misunderstood how the Middle East works

    Martin Woollacott
    Wednesday August 10, 2005
    The Guardian

    Nobody now disputes that misunderstanding has paved every step of the way in Iraq. The misunderstanding, or the lie, about Saddam's weapons continues to be central to western arguments about the war. But, important as that issue remains, there was a more profound set of misunderstandings of the social, political and religious processes at work within the Middle East.

    They included especially the tense balance between Sunni and Shia, a loss of diversity and tolerance in the Sunni lands, the real impact of Sharon's long reign in Israel, and the effect of demographic changes altering the politics of many countries in the region. It was not that these things were not seen by experts, governments or even journalists, but that they were not added up, or were added up in the wrong way. Some, such as the Shia majority in Iraq, were seen by many only as an asset for an invader. Others, such as the collapsing peace process, were categorised as requiring remedy but not, in spite of much rhetoric, urgency. Above all, the interaction between these processes, still continuing, was only partially foreseen.

    For example, Iran's resumption of its nuclear programme this week is the act of a government that, although it has serious internal weaknesses, is in a position of strength in its international dealings. The argument going on next door in Iraq over the constitution is also one in which Shia Muslims are in a strong position. In Lebanon, Syrian withdrawal may ultimately benefit an already strong Shia community. In the Gulf and in Saudi Arabia, suppressed Shia aspirations may not remain so for ever.
    These are all aspects of a shift in power between Sunnis and Shias that always had some potential for violence. But the way in which the Iraqi intervention triggered a violent Sunni reaction - at least as much among Sunnis outside Iraq as among those inside - to a potential Shia gain may come to be seen as its most important, and its most tragic, effect. To gloss this only as "terrorism", and to see it mainly in terms of a conflict between terrorists and the west, is to miss a large part of its meaning.

    The Iranian revolution had given the region a new kind of state, specifically religious and specifically Shia in a way that the Shah's regime had never been. Much of what Saddam did during his years in power was aimed at staving off a Shia succession, but, especially with Iran's weight on the scales, change in Iraq could not be delayed for ever.

    That such a succession would have come anyway in Iraq, and would undoubtedly have been accompanied by violence, is not a defence of the war. It could well have been much less violent, and it might well also have taken place - notwithstanding the existence of significant jihadist groups - without inducing such an angry Sunni reaction, for the American intervention gave an inevitable change: the aspect of a western-assisted Shia seizure of power from Sunnis in the best-endowed of all Arab states...

    ... Europe had "in a fit of absent-mindedness ... acquired not a colonial empire but something of an internal colony, whose numbers are roughly equivalent to the population of Syria." ...The limbo in which some of Europe's Muslims live has suddenly become an object of intense interest...

    The Americans in particular are wont to see nothing underneath a bad government except a people yearning to be free, and to regard the secular middle classes of countries such as Iraq or Iran as the authentic representatives of everybody else. Like it or not, this is not always the case. In Iraq's war conditions, apart from Kurdistan, these classes have been brutally targeted in Sunni areas and may well end up being outflanked by clerics in the Shia south. In Iran the recent election was a reminder that there is a third party in what from the outside is often seen as a conflict between authoritarian rulers and a liberal middle class. This third party may find itself deceived in its choice in Iran, but it is a constituency of more ordinary folk, with conservative Islamic leanings, a desire for clean government and not much interest in issues of cultural freedom. It is a constituency visible everywhere in the Middle East, in countries that have democracy, such as Turkey, where it sustains the ruling party, and in those that have little...

    ..."If you can't garner adequate resources - and public opinion at home and abroad - to rebuild a nation, do not start." But we did start, and now history has us by the throat.

    (BTW da Thomas -- I know someone VERY close to Powell -- unfortunately I think we would be dissapointed to know all that he secretly believed.)
    I can locate as many articles supporting or denouncing the action. Just because it is in print does not mean squat.

Posting Permissions